Edward Snowden is winning the internet today

wp_rathead

RayCon wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn't know who Neil DeGrasse Tyson is ?

He is God

ohnonotgmail

wp_rathead wrote: »

He is God

not quite. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is who god aspires to be.

Links234

RayCon wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn't know who Neil DeGrasse Tyson is ?

He's the Carl Sagan of today.

ohnonotgmail

Links234 wrote: »

He's the Carl Sagan of today.

lets not go totally nuts here.

I always loved the interview that John Oliver did with him.

Badly Drunk Boy

endacl wrote: »

AH response: Who's Edward Snowden? Never heard of him.

Never heard of him? He's yer man on Twitter!!

robindch

Manach wrote: »

If a patriot is someone who acts in their countries actual interests and core beliefs instead of the vested interests' ones then Snowden is more of a patriot than many of his detractors.

Snowden's actions are in many ways admirable.

However, in the absence of any similar releases from China, India, Brazil, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, France etc, not to mention his current base, Russia - given everything that it's doing - much of the admiration for his actions, and particularly the scale of them, seems questionable at best.

Son Of A Vidic

RayCon wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn't know who Neil DeGrasse Tyson is ?

I'm guessing that you've just emerged from a coma. So you've a lot of catching up to do.

Manic Moran

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

depends on the contents of the documents. he's more seen as a hero because he brought to light just how much the us government was shooting on people, not because he publicised classified info.

Right, and if the former was all he did, then there would be a little less controversy over him.

Was it necessary, for example, to leak 15,000 Australian intelligence files to reveal US NSA collection of information? Take nearly a million DoD files? The one does not excuse the other.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What material did he take to Russia and what evidence do you have of this?

Granted. That said, he did state himself to have taken the documentation with him as far as China which is just as illegal. Further, he claimed that the information he gave to journalists there (in a country known globally for its press independent from government) was safe from Chinese access because he was familiar with that nation’s intelligence abilities, saying that as an N.S.A. contractor he had targeted Chinese operations and had taught a course on Chinese cybercounterintelligence. I wouldn't stake my bank account information on that, let alone national security. That's also assuming we take him at his word.

Ush1 wrote: »

Hmm, I wonder what the "correct" way would be?

My immediate thought, given that he was afraid of reprisals should he go through regular NSA channels, would be the Senate or House Intelligence Committees, maybe having a lawyer file a suit in court, or, if he absolutely had to leak to the press, leak only the pertinent information to the subject at hand.

bigpink

Trying to be a celeb now is he*

razorblunt

His account is following one and only one other twitter account ... that of the NSA.
Gwan the bould eddie.

Cienciano

TIL that I'm the only person that thinks Neil DeGrasse Tyson comes across as a bit of a wánker

AllGunsBlazing

RayCon wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn't know who Neil DeGrasse Tyson is ?

Mike's brother?

hatrickpatrick

robindch wrote: »

Snowden's actions are in many ways admirable.

However, in the absence of any similar releases from China, India, Brazil, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, France etc, not to mention his current base, Russia - given everything that it's doing - much of the admiration for his actions, and particularly the scale of them, seems questionable at best.

Why, exactly?

Zebra3

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, and if the former was all he did, then there would be a little less controversy over him.

Was it necessary, for example, to leak 15,000 Australian intelligence files to reveal US NSA collection of information? Take nearly a million DoD files? The one does not excuse the other.



Granted. That said, he did state himself to have taken the documentation with him as far as China which is just as illegal. Further, he claimed that the information he gave to journalists there (in a country known globally for its press independent from government) was safe from Chinese access because he was familiar with that nation’s intelligence abilities, saying that as an N.S.A. contractor he had targeted Chinese operations and had taught a course on Chinese cybercounterintelligence. I wouldn't stake my bank account information on that, let alone national security. That's also assuming we take him at his word.




My immediate thought, given that he was afraid of reprisals should he go through regular NSA channels, would be the Senate or House Intelligence Committees, maybe having a lawyer file a suit in court, or, if he absolutely had to leak to the press, leak only the pertinent information to the subject at hand.

You reckon he should go through the US political establishment for some form of justice?

The establishment that blows up families at weddings, arms Islamic fundamentalists, overthrows democratically elected governments, murders its own citizens, spies on its own citizens, spies on its allies, supports dictators, supporters its allies in constantly violating international law, engages in illegal wars.

You think he should trust those scumbags in getting some form of justice?

Seriously?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, and if the former was all he did, then there would be a little less controversy over him.

Was it necessary, for example, to leak 15,000 Australian intelligence files to reveal US NSA collection of information? Take nearly a million DoD files? The one does not excuse the other.

Oh, I never commented on what he did or didn't do - I just stated that he's seen as the guy who exposed just how much surveillance and spying goes on by the US government nd how little the concept of "privacy" means to them The means are pretty much factually confirmed, regardless of whether or not they're justified.

Was it, for example, neccesary to spy on and eavesdrop on conversations between European foreign leaders?

If you want to put forward the suggestion that he put lives at risk or acted recklessly, please do so - but bear in mind I'm not nessecrily disagreeing with you.

Junkyard Tom

robindch wrote: »

in the absence of any similar releases from China, India, Brazil, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, France etc, not to mention his current base, Russia - given everything that it's doing - much of the admiration for his actions, and particularly the scale of them, seems questionable at best.

What?

Manic Moran

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Was it, for example, neccesary to spy on and eavesdrop on conversations between European foreign leaders?

Given that no nation usually acts out in the interests of any nation but itself, I can't say that it's surprising, even if it comes with political liabilities if discovered. I wouldn't be surprised if any nation which had the resources to spare would be doing so.

You reckon he should go through the US political establishment for some form of justice?

The establishment that blows up families at weddings, arms Islamic fundamentalists, overthrows democratically elected governments, murders its own citizens, spies on its own citizens, spies on its allies, supports dictators, supporters its allies in constantly violating international law, engages in illegal wars.

You think he should trust those scumbags in getting some form of justice?

Which other establishment has he been relying upon? Last I checked, it was the US politicians and courts which have had any influence on curtailing the NSA's activities, not outraged denizens of the Twitterverse no matter what country they were in.

Mother Brain

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which other establishment has he been relying upon? Last I checked, it was the US politicians and courts which have had any influence on curtailing the NSA's activities, not outraged denizens of the Twitterverse no matter what country they were in.

I would argue the contrary to be honest. If / when enough enraged citizens kick up enough of a stink to their regional / state level representatives, they are then compelled to try and effect change due to their mandate as being representative of their constituents. If self serving local politicians believe they can score political points with voters by bringing concerns over surveillance programs to the courts and congress then then they will.

It's a little bit of a stretch in my opinion to believe that entrenched power structures operating in the shadows are going to be willing or able to police their own actions in this regard, especially as what they're doing is illegal in the first place.

Obama has already made a few causal statements to the effect that the mass surveillance programs need to be refined under pressure from foreign allied leaders such as Merkel, who only had knowledge of the fact that they had been spied on as a direct result of the leaks.

Zebra3

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which other establishment has he been relying upon? Last I checked, it was the US politicians and courts which have had any influence on curtailing the NSA's activities, not outraged denizens of the Twitterverse no matter what country they were in.

If you actually bothered to follow public statements made by Snowden you'd know that what he said was that he wanted the information in the public domain, and then let the public decide if they wanted to act on the information, but that they had a right to know about the criminality that was going.

For some bizarre reason you think he should have trusted murdering scumbags to investigate it all and that they'd start prosecuting people. :rolleyes:

KingBrian2

Part of what the NSA was doing was industrial espionage. So gaining commercial advantage over rivals in a particular field. Definitely unethical behaviour. Companies should think twice before getting involved with intelligence agencies supposedly helping their Nation out or more likely profiting for themselves.

Manic Moran

Zebra3 wrote: »

If you actually bothered to follow public statements made by Snowden you'd know that what he said was that he wanted the information in the public domain, and then let the public decide if they wanted to act on the information, but that they had a right to know about the criminality that was going.

For some bizarre reason you think he should have trusted murdering scumbags to investigate it all and that they'd start prosecuting people. :rolleyes:

Not that they'd necessarily prosecute anyone, but to at least stop the NSA from its activities. And if the Intel Committee members responded back with PFOs, Snowden would still have the further option of doing what he did.

Here's the deal. If Snowden was of the opinion that these were illegal activities, it's his moral responsibility to not only get them to stop, but also to do so in the least-damaging manner possible. And, because of his choice of employer, he also had a -legal- responsibility to do so. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Is the goal to get the NSA to stop collecting information on Americans? Or is it to cause the most damage possible to the government's reputation? The one is far more laudable than the other. And much less likely to result in a prison sentence.

If self serving local politicians believe they can score political points with voters by bringing concerns over surveillance programs to the courts and congress then then they will.

I agree. But, seeing as I have a very cynical view of national-level politicians, I suspect that what would happen is that they would do the trumpeting themselves and seize the opportunity for self-promotion once the information crossed their desk. Especially if they had reason to suspect that the information could go public soon anyway.

hatrickpatrick

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's the deal. If Snowden was of the opinion that these were illegal activities, it's his moral responsibility to not only get them to stop, but also to do so in the least-damaging manner possible. And, because of his choice of employer, he also had a -legal- responsibility to do so. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

They may have been made legal by executive orders, that does not mean they weren't wholly undemocratic and massive violations of human rights.

Is the goal to get the NSA to stop collecting information on Americans?

I'd argue that it's to get the NSA (and the other five eyes partners) to stop spying on anyone, American or not, for whom they do not have probable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed. There's no justification for such surveillance of innocent people - none whatsoever.

Or is it to cause the most damage possible to the government's reputation?

Why not? They lied to the public and insisted that they respected civil rights. They deserve to be damaged for that.

Mother Brain

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not that they'd necessarily prosecute anyone, but to at least stop the NSA from its activities. And if the Intel Committee members responded back with PFOs, Snowden would still have the further option of doing what he did.

Here's the deal. If Snowden was of the opinion that these were illegal activities, it's his moral responsibility to not only get them to stop, but also to do so in the least-damaging manner possible. And, because of his choice of employer, he also had a -legal- responsibility to do so. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I agree. But, seeing as I have a very cynical view of national-level politicians, I suspect that what would happen is that they would do the trumpeting themselves and seize the opportunity for self-promotion once the information crossed their desk. Especially if they had reason to suspect that the information could go public soon anyway.

Perhaps so, though I wouldn't rate the average american congressman's willingness to go against the prevailing political orthodoxy and speak out against national security policy off their own bat. Especially in a void of awareness amongst voters of what it was he was trying to expose.

You also, mention above that snowden had a duty of care to reveal the information in the least damaging way possible and of course, I totally agree, but I fail to see any material harm caused by the leaks.

There were no personnel lists or operational / military records leaked. It's mostly internal briefing documents and memo's and the like. I can't off the top of my head think of anyone who be said to have materially suffered as a result of this information going public than snowden himself really?

I agree that he could perhaps have gone the route you describe and still have had the option to go public if he failed to achieve results, however I'd probably provide the benefit of the doubt to snowden for being able to judge the likelihood of his actions ramifications had he tried to go through official or internal channels. And indeed, i don't feel it would outside the realms of possibility that revealing your misgivings about the program could have resulted in some potentially nasty retort from the security and intelligence services, though that's pure speculation of course.

hatrickpatrick

Mother Brain wrote: »

Perhaps so, though I wouldn't rate the average american congressman's willingness to go against the prevailing political orthodoxy and speak out against national security policy off their own bat. Especially in a void of awareness amongst voters of what it was he was trying to expose.

There were one or two. Ron Wyden directly asked Alexander (former NSA chief) if they collected any data on all Americans (he already knew the answer, having seen the classified files) and Alexander flatly denied it. The next step would have been to prosecute him for lying under oath, but Snowden pulled the trigger before that had a chance to happen.

To be fair, Wyden and a few others were trying for years to expose this stuff without breaking any laws - which in and of itself entirely justifies Snowden doing so illegally.

Mother Brain

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There were one or two. Ron Wyden directly asked Alexander (former NSA chief) if they collected any data on all Americans (he already knew the answer, having seen the classified files) and Alexander flatly denied it. The next step would have been to prosecute him for lying under oath, but Snowden pulled the trigger before that had a chance to happen.

To be fair, Wyden and a few others were trying for years to expose this stuff without breaking any laws - which in and of itself entirely justifies Snowden doing so illegally.

I actually remember reading about that but I thought it was after the fact.

BMMachine

he did exactly the right thing.

maybe if America didnt invade countries and destabilise entire regions of the planet under false pretences -repeatedly- then that wouldnt happen. Oh and look who has to take care of the mess america made, Europe. Thanks for that guys (and Blair), great f**king job

hatrickpatrick

Mother Brain wrote: »

I actually remember reading about that but I thought it was after the fact.

No Wyden was hammering at this for years, and you can tell how frustrated he was at being constrained by the law. He repeatedly said things such as "If the American public had any idea how scarily the government was interpreting this law [about the Patriot Act and FAA 702], they would be utterly horrified".

The fact that a congressman was thus prevented from representing the public shows just how broken the system was. If everyone is being watched, at the very least they should know that it's going on.

Zebra3

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not that they'd necessarily prosecute anyone, but to at least stop the NSA from its activities. And if the Intel Committee members responded back with PFOs, Snowden would still have the further option of doing what he did.

Here's the deal. If Snowden was of the opinion that these were illegal activities, it's his moral responsibility to not only get them to stop, but also to do so in the least-damaging manner possible. And, because of his choice of employer, he also had a -legal- responsibility to do so. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Is the goal to get the NSA to stop collecting information on Americans? Or is it to cause the most damage possible to the government's reputation? The one is far more laudable than the other. And much less likely to result in a prison sentence.

You make it sound like he was up against reasonable people, not bloodthirsty nutjobs.

He had no reason whatsoever to trust the US political and judicial system.

Massimo Cassagrande

robindch wrote: »

Snowden's actions are in many ways admirable.

However, in the absence of any similar releases from China, India, Brazil, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, France etc, not to mention his current base, Russia - given everything that it's doing - much of the admiration for his actions, and particularly the scale of them, seems questionable at best.

Whatabout them Footpaths Joe?

I think the old "better to light a candle than whinge about the dark" theory applies in Snowdens case. No one cared anyway, which was odd.